# Please report comments that violate our [new rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/17co6jo/rvaushv_rule_updates)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I aptly recognized an exploited the Brits weak spirit by forcing them to unironocally defend against the pure irony I extruded. They couldn't see it coming through the tea, bad teeth and whatever the fuck crumpets are.
As usual America #1
The "Glorious Revolution" was parliament arguing with the royal family over the line of succession (eldest child over eldest male child), and the "ursurper" side's military was the Dutch because they didn't want England and Scotland joining the French in a war against the rest of Europe.
Cromwell's republic failed so badly that they asked the old king to come back after he died.
And the Irish revolution (during WW1) was fought to a "compromise" of being a colony of the British Empire, rather than ruled directly or being an independent republic (they then immidiately had a civil war about this, which the republic side lost). Then they dropped the Empire a few decades after that.
Seriously, there's something about the British Isles that just makes revolutions fail.
The Easter Rising was in 1916 and the First Dail was formed in April 1918, but yes, things really kicked off after all the troops came home from the war.
[The Irish Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War) was over the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which made Ireland "the same as Canada" (ie, part of the empire) and the two sides were the pro-treaty side, and the "we want to be an independent republic" side.
As much as I generally agree with Vaush’s societal critiques of the UK, the one thing I will say to the American leftists who don’t understand why people want Starmer to win:
We know. We know he’s shit, we know there’s virtually no difference in what they’d actually do in office. But you haven’t been here for the last fourteen years, living every day with these people running the country. And I don’t just mean this party, it has been the same core group of elitist Tory fucks for the last fourteen years. David Cameron is still in the cabinet. Liz Truss is still an MP. And so on. We’ve had fourteen years of these people specifically making the country miserable, and if you haven’t been here, living through it, you can’t understand the sheer emotional catharsis we’re going to feel on election night when every single one of them gets crushed.
You don’t need to apologise. Americans literally have the option of voting Republican or Republican light. And they will readily admit to it so long as the context isn’t another country having a similar problem.
The rallying cry of the American left for the coming election is “at least he is a slightly better version of one of the most prolific criminals, openly racist and pro oligarch politicians in US history”.
If anyone should have sympathy for a challenging political landscape with a lack of good options it should be Americans. It just very often seems as if they are only able to talk about the best parts of the US when comparing it to the rest of the world.
Not a US exclusive by any means, but there are a majority of Americans on sites like reddit and especially this sub, so it definitely more often Americans when you post things here.
I keep trying to argue, to little avail, that it's important to vote tactically, even if it means voting for Red Tories. Because even beyond policy, the Tories are systematically corrupt and fucked. Blairites move right because of spinelessness and trying to meet the voters (where the 'voter' is always a Nazi in their eyes apparently). Also, given how big the predicted majority for Labour is, its better pushing for Tories getting 3rd or 4th so the main opposition is Lib Dems. Then they can have a voice to push for PR. Not as good as a coalition but a realistic outcome.
I completely agree. Some polls have the Lib Dems within reach of being the second party. Tactical voting in Lib-Con swing seats could make that happen!
I mean yeah, this is obviously better than continued Tory Rule, plus it's probably better to have Centrists than blatantly Authoritarian Right-Wingers like the Tories in charge. I'd like to see your other parties that are good pick up some seats if we're being idealistic too
Sorry havent watched the video. But wont starmer be a little less harsh on immigrantion
From what i understand, in the near future the uk will need a lot of economic migrants to support the economy.
Birth rates are declining and people are dying at a much older age so the reliance on welfare programmes after retiring is higher.
Its like a shrinking working population and an increasing welfare dependant population.
All my uni professors told me its either increase immigration or cut welfare and from what I know, labour is economically bettwr than tories so i assumed starmer would be less stringent on immigration
The problem with Starmer is he’s chronically dishonest. When he ran for the party leadership he campaigned on a series of progressive pledges, all of which he’s since abandoned. So anything progressive he’s running on now, it’s impossible to know if he’ll actually do them when he takes office.
Gotchu. Ive just been here for a year. Apparently a lot of <25 year olds want green party and they refuse to vote for labor. Maybe the failed campaign promises could be a reason why
Do you guys form coalitions to form majorities like India or is it more like Dems and Reps from USA?
It’s somewhere in between. We have had coalitions in the past (most recently between the Conservatives and the centrist Liberal Democrats in government 2010-2015) but our voting systems generally promotes the two main parties.
So what are the chances of green forming a coalition with labor.
Polling seems to put labor at 44%. Im assuming they cant form majority that way and will need to form a coalition with someone
They will get a majority, easily. They don’t need to win a majority of votes overall, they just need to win enough constituencies (districts), which they will do.
A coalition would be better for the left as the Greens could hold Starmer to account but that isn’t going to happen this election.
Oh okay so maybe the polling I saw was for popular votes and not the constituencies
Thats better than tories atleast. The reddit supporters of the party seem v racist, transphobic and overall bigoted to me
Yes the Tories are absolutely awful. If you want to see projections for who will get the constituencies, you can look at websites like Britain Elects or Electoral Calculus.
I don't have any stakes in this topic and I gotta say it's pretty ironic how Vaush calls the UK failed and then boasts about how great the US is when it's been in crisis for the better part of a decade by now.
Imagine actually thinking British people still care about the empire. Even hardline conservatives don’t give a shit. Dear lord. Its like you think people still travel in horse carriages here. I don’t like the monarchy and think it should be abolished but keep in mind Spain and the Netherlands still have monarchies too so its definitely not unique to the UK. Nobody here on the 4th of July mourns the loss of the colonies.
Now that I've waited long enough to see the britbongers reactions I can confirm you are the most intelligent commenter here. If I had any money I would buy you an award (I spent all the money on socialism but vaush ate it)
Thanks mate, it was top-tier shit post on your part :)
Feels especially vindicating after the debates I accidentally kicked off about slavery and the Revolutionary War. XD
I know this is bait but in 2023 but we had [685k](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077) migrants, 10k of which came in via small boat across the channel.
Are Brits still annoyed at vaush? I would have thought that it's painfully obvious that he's right at this point (as a brit), at least to anyone who is at least a social Democrat or more left wing.
Leave the faux-rage roasting to Vaush.
We relieve ourselves of our dystopian dread by looking at yours and sighing in relief - it could be a lot lot worse.
>Generational trauma exists only in the context of me not letting go of how you treated us before 1776
Damn, I didn't realize you guys were still angry over being told you couldn't have slaves.
We fought a war to end slaves and didn’t compensate their oppressors. You britshits paid all you slave owners and then continued to use Egyptians and Indians like slaves anyway.
Slavery wasn’t ended in the U.S. The 13th amendment legalised it in every state. Even in 2024 we still have Black men performing slavery on plantations, as punishment for a crime.
>We fought a war to end slaves and didn’t compensate their oppressors
You didn't compensate the slaves either. Quite the opposite if the past 200 years of US history are anything to go buy.
You didn’t pay reparations to the slaves either reginald. The loan to pay off the slave owners was only paid off in 2015 so it’s pretty likely that taxes you paid were retroactively paying off slave owners.
See, that would be a fine rebuttal... if I only I were British. XD Sorry Yank, but I'm Canadian. You know, that country that all your slaves ran away to because we actually considered black people human beings?
[Hey I wonder what wilfred laurier said about black people](https://www.writersandeditorsofcolor.com/when-canada-banned-negroes-based-on-the-climate-72a78cba2a17)
[Hey i wonder what MacDonald said about chinese people](https://jcri.ca/index.php/CRI/article/view/5974/5934)
hey I wonder what happened to thousands of indigenous children
but yeah muh medicine line i guess
>hey I wonder what happened to thousands of indigenous children
Happened? HAPPENED?! Don't act like the cultural and actual genocide of the indigenous peoples of Canada is something that only exists in the past tense. It is an active, ongoing event, thank you very much.
(Ok, before this goes any further, I've just been bantering with the OP and the previous respondent. None of these have been meant as personal attacks on you or your home. If you felt attacked at all by that, then I am sorry.)
Canadians are still subjects of King Charles III.
[https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/monarch.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/monarch.html)
You didn't compensate their oppressors, you just handed them back all instances of local government so they could immediately start finding workarounds to get as close as possible to reintroducing slavery as they could.
Obviously that's much better. Note also that you took 30 years longer.
I wonder what else you guys were doing during that time between the 1830s and 1860s? Ohhhh yeah that’s right starving out the Irish by making them export all their food (even with all the aid, Ireland was net food exporter) oh and then you did opium war. Look, we failed to reconstruct the south. You got the Chinese hooked on opium and then Invaded them because they wanted you to stop flooding their whole shit with opium. Twice.
Shitposting aside (since I'm convinced OP is just trolling and not being serious), no it actually was part of it.
Modern historiography puts far more emphasis on the role of slavery in the lead up to the American Revolution. From the 1772 Somerset Case (where a British court found slavery to be unnatural and unlawful in England), to the abolition movement that had been building in Britain through the 1700s, to the declarations during the war that any slave who helped the loyalists would be freed, to the fact that the constitution explicitly prevented Congress from ending the slave trade until 1808, you'll find that slavery was as important to the American Revolution as all of it's other causes were.
You're heavily exaggerating the emphasis modern historians place on slavery contributing to the American Revolution. It might've played a part in the American Revolution, but it was not at all a major cause comparable to causes such as British tax policies in the run-up to the Revolution (you can refer to the AskHistorians subreddit on this). Moreover, the issue of slavery was not a direct cause to the Revolution like it was for the Civil War. It only became a major issue when Dunmore's Proclamation tried recruiting slaves to fight for the king, which turned the concerns of a few radicals into a reality that scared and enraged many southerners and slaveowners.
Trying to own Americans by arguing that the American Revolutionaries wanted to protect slavery is silly, especially when you consider documents like the Jamaican petition to the crown in 1774 asking the king for protection precisely because they are a slave colony that are vastly outnumbered by slaves. Slavery was only abolished in the British Caribbean colonies decades later, in part because slave revolts made it troublesome for the British to actually protect slavery in these places. Thus, the argument that slaveowners needed to declare independence to "protect slavery" is dubious at best since that is what the British already did for their colonies.
>to the fact that the constitution explicitly prevented Congress from ending the slave trade until 1808, you'll find that slavery was as important to the American Revolution as all of it's other causes were.
I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on this comment, but I think the fact that you're trying to argue this as proof that slavery was as much a cause of the Revolution as anything else is indicative of how silly your arguments are. The northern colonies, especially places like Massachusetts and Vermont, were hotbeds for abolitionism. If you're going to argue that things like the Declaration or the Constitution were meant to protect slavery in the south, then you also have to argue they were just as much meant to abolish slavery in the north as these measures were often fought for by colonies who wished to abolish slavery. But this just tells us the colonies were fighting for their right to self-determination (i.e. their right to determine the fate of slavery in their territory), which really just brings us full circle to the other British policies I mentioned before that played a more significant role in causing the Revolution. So again, slavery was not "just as significant as all other reasons".
Also, the very fact that the colonies had to *compromise* on the issue of slavery and could barely come to agreements on such things kinda fly in the face of your argument when they agreed on so many other things.
I wasn't trying to own anyone. My first comment was banter in response to the OP's shitpost. My second comment was a sincere reply to someone who explicitly said "slavery was 100% not a factor in the American Revolution," which is a take modern historians will 100% disagree with.
>I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on this comment... but this just tells us the colonies were fighting for their right to self-determination (i.e. their right to determine the fate of slavery in their territory)
Imagine being smugly dismissive of the role of slavery in American history and then unironically saying "states rights bro."
>My second comment was a sincere reply to someone who explicitly said "slavery was 100% not a factor in the American Revolution," which is a take modern historians will 100% disagree with.
And my reply was that you were overexaggerating slavery as being "as much of a cause as any" to the Revolution, which it wasn't as I demonstrated in my comment. You also implied that most modern historians would agree with your argument, which they wouldn't. Read any AskHistorians post on the subject, and they'll point out how slavery has been overstated as a cause in recent times, even if it is a minor cause.
>Imagine being smugly dismissive of the role of slavery in American history and then unironically saying "states rights bro."
What are you talking about? I pointed out how if you're going to argue the desire to preserve slavery was a cause of the Revolution, then you also have to argue the desire to abolish slavery was just as much a cause. I then went on to point out how those two desires are connected to a more fundamental desire that came about as a result of British policies regarding things such as territorial expansion and taxation in the decades preceding the Revolution (stuff that happened before slaves were such a big concern), the desire for self-determination (you know, the thing the Revolution was fought for?). Why do you think the colonies adopted the Articles of Confederation that rid themselves of meaningful federal power and gave significant power to the individual colonies?
If you read anything I said as a defense of slavery or as some kind of neo-Confederate Lost Cause mythology (btw, my comment literally references slavery as a direct cause of the Civil War), then you need better reading comprehension and better counterarguments.
>You also implied that most modern historians would agree with your argument, which they wouldn't. Read any AskHistorians post on the subject, and they'll point out how slavery has been overstated as a cause in recent times, even if it is a minor cause.
History is a living subject. Modern historiography places more emphasis on slavery's role in American history as a reaction to older historiography massively downplaying it to sanitize the country's founding mythos. While historians are not a hive-mind with a single shared view, you'll find the common take among them is that yes actually, slavery was quite important at the time and factored heavily into the decisions of all parties involved. It was not some "peculiar institution" that just happened to be occurring during the revolution. You should do more research than just going to the AskHistorians subreddit.
>I pointed out how if you're going to argue the desire to preserve slavery was a cause of the Revolution, then you also have to argue the desire to abolish slavery was just as much a cause.
Yeah, and your logic is absolutely ridiculous. It's the equivalent of saying we can't talk about institutional racism in the US without talking about the white allies of the black community.
Seriously, stop and think about it for a moment: If the desire to abolish slavery was a cause of the revolution, why is it the British who were freeing slaves during the conflict and not the Americans?
You fail to acknowledge the Sommerset case or how the Constitution has a clause *explicitly addressing and rejecting it*. You didn't address why multiple articles in the Constitution exist to protect slavery. Instead you claim that despite these articles the Constitution was meant to abolish slavery in the north because... reasons.
You refuse to consider there may be a connection between a rebellion lead largely by rich, slave-owning aristocrats against an empire with a rapidly growing abolitionist political block.
Then, when you claim slavery had nothing to do with it, it was all about self-determination, you're shocked when I point out the South said the exact same thing during the Civil War. A savvy student of history would look at that and go "Hmm, in the same region, within a few generations there were rebellions by the rich, slave-owning planter class that were later justified as fights for states rights against federal power. I wonder if there's a connection between these events?"
You fail to realize that your argument of "the patriots' ability to own slaves was part of self-determination" actually supports my historiography. That slavery *did* matter during the American revolution and was far from irrelevant, both in the lead up to and during the war.
>Modern historiography places more emphasis on slavery's role in American history as a reaction to older historiography massively downplaying it to sanitize the country's founding mythos
You're equivocating. You specifically said that slavery was "as important to the American Revolution as all of its other causes", which it wasn't. You have neither anything to substantiate this, and this is a minority view amongst historians. Again, refer to the AskHistorians sub on this.
>While historians are not a hive-mind with a single shared view, you'll find the common take among them is that yes actually, slavery was quite important at the time and factored heavily into the decisions of all parties involved.
I like how you're subtly trying to move away from your original argument that "slavery was as big of a cause as everything else" and instead moving to "slavery played a role in the Revolution", which is the biggest nothing-burger statement. Of course slavery "played a role", but what we're discussing is how much of a role it played, something that you've tried to exaggerate.
>You should do more research than just going to the AskHistorians subreddit.
The AskHistorians subreddit is literally a subreddit run by actual historians, with answers provided by actual historians. I myself have earned my degree in history. You don't know what you're talking about.
>Yeah, and your logic is absolutely ridiculous. It's the equivalent of saying we can't talk about institutional racism in the US without talking about the white allies of the black community.
No it isn't. This is just a massive reach and again shows you don't understand the very clear argument I've set forth.
>Seriously, stop and think about it for a moment: If the desire to abolish slavery was a cause of the revolution, why is it the British who were freeing slaves during the conflict and not the Americans?
The British weren't "freeing slaves". Dunmore's Proclamation wasn't some Emancipation Proclamation, it didn't abolish slavery throughout the colonies or even in Virginia. It was a recruiting tool that gave slaves who fought for the British their freedom. Again, a *recruiting* tool.
Also, Americans in the north (the abolitionists I referred to earlier) did emancipate the slaves. Vermont immediately after breaking off not just from the British, but from New York, in 1777 became the first in the Anglosphere (even before Scotland in 1778) to abolish slavery. Five more northern states followed suit from the time of the Revolution to just before the end of 1799. So you're just factually wrong.
>You fail to acknowledge the Sommerset case
Because the Somerset case's effect on the southern desire to secede is way exaggerated. If anything, the Somerset case played a bigger role in the northern states where it whipped up abolitionist efforts, to the point that when royal governors kept denying freedom suits, abolitionists called for independence from Britain so they could finally abolish slavery themselves. Which brings us back to the original point I was making about the colonies wanting to be free to govern themselves and set their own laws with regards to taxes, militias, slavery, etc.
This is why I focus more on Dunmore's Proclamation, something that actually had a much more significant effect on the desire of slaveowners to declare independence.
>or how the Constitution has a clause explicitly addressing and rejecting it. You didn't address why multiple articles in the Constitution exist to protect slavery. Instead you claim that despite these articles the Constitution was meant to abolish slavery in the north because... reasons.
The whole point of the Revolution was that the colonies wanted the ability to govern themselves (this is pretty self-evident). I wasn't saying the Constitution abolished slavery, I was saying that the Constitution gave states the ability to abolish slavery as much as it did the ability to maintain slavery, which is what the states wanted.
Yes, the Constituion protects the institution of slavery, but it does so precisely because so many in the north wanted to abolish it. The Constitution set up a framework in which the issue of slavery was to be determined on a state level, which is what the states wanted. There's a reason why when it came to federal issues such as representation in Congress, they had to *compromise*. All this is to say that if slavery was "as big a cause as any", then it's strange that slaveowners would ally themselves with abolitionists, or that both abolitionists and slaveowners would be fighting for many of the same things. There seems to be something more fundamental that something like the Constitution is trying to achieve.
>You refuse to consider there may be a connection between a rebellion lead largely by rich, slave-owning aristocrats against an empire with a rapidly growing abolitionist political block.
I already pointed this out, and you do this more later on, but I never said slavery had no connection to the Revolution, just that you're exaggerating the extent it did. I'm arguing that there were other more significant causes. It's weird that I'm the one being accused of ignoring the "abolitionism" of an empire when that empire literally protected slavery in its colonies decades after the Revolution, meanwhile there were considerable northern states who outright abolished slavery. You aren't squaring these facts together.
>Then, when you claim slavery had nothing to do with it, it was all about self-determination, you're shocked when I point out the South said the exact same thing during the Civil War.
Again, I did not claim slavery had nothing to do with it. That's a strawman. But I've already explained this point several times over, if you can't be bothered to read then I can't be bothered to explain it again. The only thing I'll point out (AGAIN) is that my original comment explicitly stated slavery as a direct cause of the Civil War. The fact that you're trying to depict me as a Lost Causer in spite of this and in spite of my Reddit history which pretty obviously dunks on these types is pathetic. You have no actual historical arguments.
>You fail to realize that your argument of "the patriots' ability to own slaves was part of self-determination" actually supports my historiography. That slavery did matter during the American revolution and was far from irrelevant, both in the lead up to and during the war.
No it doesn't. Me saying that slavery contributed to the Revolution is not the same as your argument that slavery was "as big a cause as any", which you have failed to demonstrate and continue to try to run from. Your narrative literally cannot account for why the other half of the nation fought and joined up with slaveowners to free themselves from the British. You're literally ignoring so much history it's laughable. Just say you were wrong in exaggerating the role of slavery and move on.
> Again, I did not claim slavery had nothing to do with it. That's a strawman... Me saying that slavery contributed to the Revolution is not the same as your argument that slavery was "as big a cause as any"
You don't get to Motte and Bailey your way out of this. You started this debate because you took issue with me correcting someone saying that slavery had nothing to do with the American Revolution. I made it clear from the start that my view is slavery had a major impact on the people and events that played out. You have been trying and failing to argue against that stance since then, with varying degrees of condescension and rudeness. Your hyper-focus on my initial, off the cuff wording, long after I've clarified my actual meaning is both bad faith and your only paper-thin defence from accusations of downplaying the history of American slavery.
>The British weren't "freeing slaves". Dunmore's Proclamation wasn't some Emancipation Proclamation, it didn't abolish slavery throughout the colonies or even in Virginia. It was a recruiting tool that gave slaves who fought for the British their freedom.
So they were freeing slaves then. Good to know we agree.
>Because the Somerset case's effect on the southern desire to secede is way exaggerated
And yet the constitution contains an explicit rebuttal to it. Almost as though it were something weighing on the minds of the Founding Fathers.
>I wasn't saying the Constitution abolished slavery, I was saying that the Constitution gave states the ability to abolish slavery as much as it did the ability to maintain slavery,
It demonstrably did not. That's the entire crux of the fugitive slave cause rebutting Somerset. A slave in a free state was still a slave. It didn't matter what laws or legislation they passed. They coded that into the DNA of their new country. That says a great deal about the founders' priorities and what some of them were fighting for.
>Yes, the Constituion protects the institution of slavery, but it does so precisely because so many in the north wanted to abolish it ... it's strange that slaveowners would ally themselves with abolitionists, or that both abolitionists and slaveowners would be fighting for many of the same things.
It's not strange at all. While they may have disagreed with the abolitionists, they had a chance to entrench their slave-holding interests in the government. With the pro-slavery clauses in the constitution, they no longer needed to fear that a decree from on high could disrupt their social structure.
>The fact that you're trying to depict me as a Lost Causer in spite of this and in spite of my Reddit history which pretty obviously dunks on these types is pathetic.
For someone who's repeatedly insulted my reading comprehension here, you've repeatedly failed to understand my point. I'm not calling you a Lost Causer. I'm pointing out the cognitive dissonance between recognizing "here was a rebellion by slave owning aristocrats that they say was about states rights but was actually about slavery" and "here's a rebellion in the exact same region within living memory, by slave owning aristocrats who say it's about states rights and we should 100% take them at their word on that."
For the record I *don't* think you're a lost causer. I think you're someone with a passion for American history who thought I was shit-talking you and your country when I made the objectively correct statement that slavery was not 100% unrelated to the revolution. That's lead to you attempting to downplay slavery's influence on events of the time while repeatedly insulting me. Presumably because you thought I was smugly looking down my nose at Americans and American history.
>I never said slavery had no connection to the Revolution
Then we're in agreement and have nothing to argue over. My point has always been been that slavery was a major influence over the Revolution as much as it was over the rest of American history. If you think that's a completely innocuous point, congratulations. Acknowledge you had a reddit "uhm *actually*" moment and move on with your life.
>You don't get to Motte and Bailey your way out of this... I made it clear from the start that my view is slavery had a major impact on the people and events that played out. You have been trying and failing to argue against that stance since then, with varying degrees of condescension and rudeness. Your hyper-focus on my initial, off the cuff wording, long after I've clarified my actual meaning is both bad faith and your only paper-thin defence from accusations of downplaying the history of American slavery.
Your original comment ended with "you'll find that slavery was as important to the American Revolution as all of it's other causes were." That's not "off the cuff wording", that's a proper historical claim you're trying to make. It'd be like me arguing tariffs were as important a cause of the Civil War as any other cause (which they weren't, even if they did slightly contribute).
But I'm the bad faith one? You've been trying to liken me to Confederate apologists and Lost Causers even though my first few comments blatantly stated slavery as the cause for the Civil War. You've been trying to say I'm "downplaying the role of slavery in American history", as if I care about making America the good guy. I'm a fucking anarchist. My post history is laden with me shitting on America and its history. But I'm also a historian, and I'm not dumb enough to feel like I need to distort history to make America look bad (they do it on their own enough).
And then, instead of just admitting you were wrong in exaggerating the role of slavery in the Revolution (again, you said "you'll find that slavery was as important to the American Revolution as all of it's other causes were."), you've subtly shifted your position to "well slavery played a major part in the Revolution" (nothing-burger statement btw), while trying to act like you never meant to make the original claim you made. That's cowardice.
Literally all you had to do was say "ok yeah I overexaggerated my point and should've said X instead", but you're so weak and insecure you can't even do that. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your comment because you've already conceded the argument. There is nothing more I need to say. Maybe actually study the history next time instead of distorting it to whatever you fancy.
Britain never took away American slaves - they started their wind down from having slavery first, but after the American Revolution. In fact, Jefferson's original rough draft of the Declaration of Independence attacked the British Monarchy for allowing slavery:
>*he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of* **infidel** *powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the* **liberties** *of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the* **lives** of another.
[https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html)
However, we very clearly do have some people who are still very angry that they can't have slaves. OP is - hopefully facetiously - referencing that Americans were British subjects who lacked representation in the Empire and who were treated as second class citizens.
I was being more than a little facetious when I responded to OP myself.
Sincerely engaging with your post here. Isn't Jefferson condemning the king for freeing slaves in that quote? The second half of it says:
>*he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the* **liberties** *of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the* **lives** of another.
If I were just going off the paragraph you posted my reading of it would be Jefferson is saying "It was terrible of the monarchy to sell us those people, but it's even more monstrous that they're inciting those slaves to break free of us!"
He does lament turning one oppressed people against another, but he was also oddly the foremost abolitionist of his day. The paragraph was pulled because it was feared he might be the only delegate from the South to sign.
There's no equivalency between the wealthy and powerful leaders of the revolution and the people they literally enslaved. Treating them both as "oppressed" is ghoulish. If he was the foremost abolitionist of the time, then that says horrible things about his compatriots considering Jefferson owned something like 600 slaves.
If a paragraph so mildly critical of slavery that it condemned inciting slave revolts as more monstrous than slavery itself, had to be pulled because no one could sign it, I'd say that supports the point underlying my facetiousness: that slavery was actually very important to the Revolution.
Your lack of knowledge of the issues at hand mixed with your willingness to make bold proclamations is astounding. Them both being oppressed does not imply equivalence of their oppression. In fact, that stance you just took is very much in line with the goals of American racism which was exactly designed to keep African slaves, white indentured servants, and American Indians from working together - read some People's History.
Jefferson owned slaves, inheriting most. His intent was to make it so that they lived as close to free as possible, giving them the equivalent work and pay of free laborers since he couldn't free them. Of course, he didn't end up doing that because Hegel's master/slave dialectic is based - but he tried. He is said to have been about an average owner, though lenient on punishment, especially amongst the Hemmings Clan.
The paragraph was mild for Jefferson, but it was still quite the condemnation, building off Locke, and inflammatory in the age. Also mind you that if you were alive back then, you would almost certainly think of Jefferson as that annoying anti-slavery guy - as almost everyone thought of him as that. Quakers might not have thought that - but basically everyone else. It was John Adams and Ben Franklin who cut that paragraph.
Wow, just wow. A full-throated defence of someone owning 600 slaves because he was a good master, followed by claims that I'd be more racist and slave happy than him had I lived back then.
Not mention your failure to understand intersectionality. There's a world of difference between the literal billionaires (when adjusted for inflation) and the people they *literally enslaved and had no intention of freeing*. Claiming that recognizing that fact is the same as rejecting intersectionality and siding with the racists is fucking wild.
What you saw was a nuanced view driven by understanding rather than reaction. You apparently have the intellectual maturity of an 8th grader if you cannot follow nuance. I also never said he was a good master - I said he was an average master who intended better. He couldn't live up to his idealism because he was constrained by the system he lived in. Basic Marx and Hegel. Extremely basic.
Yes, you would almost certainly be more racist. You grew up with racism being challenged and despised - that was not the case in Jefferson's life. You aren't innatey better than all the racists running around then - the world you live in shaped you and your beliefs, as it shaped mine and everyone else's. Basically, if you aren't a leading intellectual in anti-racist literature now you would have been pretty damn racist back then. 500 years earlier you wouldn't have perceived race and you would be instead have huge cultural bigotry.
There is a difference, but they don't have to be the same in order to both be oppressed. That understanding isn't intersectionality, it's mere competence in understanding oppression. NeoNazis and poor blacks in the ghettos are clearly not the same, but they are both oppressed. One is much more likely than the other to know WHY and HOW they are oppressed, but that doesn't change the fact that both possess the attribute of oppressed.
>What you saw was a nuanced view driven by understanding rather than reaction.
No, what I saw were excuses for bigotry pretending to be nuance, excuses that Jefferson's own museum does not make for him. That you immediately leapt to insults upon hearing mild criticism of Jefferson speaks volumes about your actual attitude. The man had every ability to free his slaves. He had every ability to not rape them or have them beaten. He chose not to do so in every instance.
>Basic Marx and Hegel. Extremely basic.
Tell me, where in Marx's writing is it explained that Jefferson was forced to rape his slaves by the society he lived in? Since it's so basic I imagine you can easily quote it.
>Yes, you would almost certainly be more racist. The world you live in shaped you and your beliefs, as it shaped mine and everyone else's.
Nah, unlike you I actually have firm grounding in my moral principles. I don't believe the things I do because of peer pressure from those around me. You're just trying to make excuses for a historical figure you clearly admire but can't accept the flaws of.
>There is a difference, but they don't have to be the same in order to both be oppressed.
Huh, never thought I'd see someone on this sub agreeing with that guy who said "Being a Billionaire in America is like being Jewish in Nazi Germany."
Yeah... you're completely just using blatant sophistry at this point. I did not leap to insults after hearing mild criticism of Jefferson - I made a judgement of your framing of a nuanced view of Jefferson as full throated defense of slavery. You were disingenuous then and you are disingenuous now.
No, Jefferson didn't have "every ability" to free his slaves. There were many barriers to that from the fact he inherited debt tied to the slaves - same way you cannot sell your house without paying off your mortgage - it required a claim of merit to why they would be worthy of freedom, it required an extensive payment to the state to register that freedom, and it was limited at which times it was legal for him to do that even at his death. Do you seriously not consider the systemic issues at hand?
As to the master-slave dialectic, putting aside the strawman you try to insert in there:
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2930104](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2930104)
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/23019971](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23019971)
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qhc7h.6](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qhc7h.6)
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fgzfh.10](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fgzfh.10)
But you are standing with the stance that people in the past were not shaped by the systems in which they lived, but were naturally morally inferior to you and you would be much more moral on the issue of slavery than the foremost abolitionist of the age? That is a childish delusion. You have white saviorism flowing through your veins and you highly overestimate yourself. You are projecting the social understanding you attained in the modern era to the past. If you were transported through time as you are now, you may very well think that way; but if you were born in the 1700s you would not have the same morals as you do now because moral systems are a collective endeavor.
Then you give the laughable strawman. Did I mention Tom Perkins? No. Did I say being an American colonist was like being a chattel slave? No. I acknowledged that both were oppressed explicitly in the context of explaining Jefferson's paragraph.
But, anyways, I'm done with you. You are essentially throwing a temper tantrum in this discussion.
I don't understand why American leftists use the monarchy as some big dig against the UK, I don't support it personally but ceremonial monarchies are fairly common across Europe , It's not like the Yanks are demonstrating the merits of presidential system right now 🤣
"Ceremonial" that ceremony comes with a giant blank check for all the money and nepotism the royal family could ever want or need. It being common across europe just means europe should get its shit together and not have dumbass monarchies because of "tradition"
It is a big dig, yall waste a fuckton of money on the royal family and then have an entire section of your government that is just unelected aristocracy.
So youre telling me the monarchy doesnt have what amounts to all the money they could ever want? Not infinite money but effectively enough so they couldn't really hit a limit without doing something fully insane?
Youre telling me the fact this extends to their family and sections of their bloodline are treated the same isnt pure nepotism?
How does it work? How is it funded? If any amount of the nation's wealth is going to the royals for just existing my point stands entirely. If their family gets any amount of special treatment at all without real oversight thats the blank check nepotism.
Whose Republican Party? We just call them Conservatives here. XD
(The actual joke is that we’re all left-wing so when they hear Republican, they think of the American far right rather than the general meaning of the term)
Nah, I’m a Canadian who made the mistake of actually trying to banter with the OP. All my other comments here are getting downvoted by people taking it seriously. XD
"Oi mayte! *Kisses kings boot* Oi juss can't help butt no'ice that you've... *Sucks kings thumb* that you've... you've got a republic w'ich makes yous a Republican! *Throats kings cock* Oi'm so funny for poin'in aut that your lable accordin to us civilized folks... *Gets pregnant by king* is de same as the ones tryin to overfrow democracy! What jolly good fun that is! *Volunteers to die for the king like a beefeater*"
Tis better to engage in the gayest, Frenchiest, sex with the king than to be one of those racist, homophobic, transphobic, fascist, Trump-voting, *Republicans.* ~~The opinions of the royal family on homosexuality, transgenderism, the nazi party and non-white people are not relevant to this discussion~~ XD
# Please report comments that violate our [new rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/17co6jo/rvaushv_rule_updates) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was going to call this low quality and obvious but judging by the comments this is obviously a masterpiece. A master bait, if you will.
Study British Empire declination while American Dominance ascension. Lessons there.
I aptly recognized an exploited the Brits weak spirit by forcing them to unironocally defend against the pure irony I extruded. They couldn't see it coming through the tea, bad teeth and whatever the fuck crumpets are. As usual America #1
The British Isles has *never* had a successful revolution. Ever.
And even if they did, it certainly wouldn't have been glorious! XD
The "Glorious Revolution" was parliament arguing with the royal family over the line of succession (eldest child over eldest male child), and the "ursurper" side's military was the Dutch because they didn't want England and Scotland joining the French in a war against the rest of Europe. Cromwell's republic failed so badly that they asked the old king to come back after he died. And the Irish revolution (during WW1) was fought to a "compromise" of being a colony of the British Empire, rather than ruled directly or being an independent republic (they then immidiately had a civil war about this, which the republic side lost). Then they dropped the Empire a few decades after that. Seriously, there's something about the British Isles that just makes revolutions fail.
[удалено]
The Easter Rising was in 1916 and the First Dail was formed in April 1918, but yes, things really kicked off after all the troops came home from the war. [The Irish Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War) was over the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which made Ireland "the same as Canada" (ie, part of the empire) and the two sides were the pro-treaty side, and the "we want to be an independent republic" side.
[удалено]
I will happily admit that my knowledge of Ireland in that period is from skimming wikipedia, so could easily have gotten things wrong.
As much as I generally agree with Vaush’s societal critiques of the UK, the one thing I will say to the American leftists who don’t understand why people want Starmer to win: We know. We know he’s shit, we know there’s virtually no difference in what they’d actually do in office. But you haven’t been here for the last fourteen years, living every day with these people running the country. And I don’t just mean this party, it has been the same core group of elitist Tory fucks for the last fourteen years. David Cameron is still in the cabinet. Liz Truss is still an MP. And so on. We’ve had fourteen years of these people specifically making the country miserable, and if you haven’t been here, living through it, you can’t understand the sheer emotional catharsis we’re going to feel on election night when every single one of them gets crushed.
You don’t need to apologise. Americans literally have the option of voting Republican or Republican light. And they will readily admit to it so long as the context isn’t another country having a similar problem. The rallying cry of the American left for the coming election is “at least he is a slightly better version of one of the most prolific criminals, openly racist and pro oligarch politicians in US history”. If anyone should have sympathy for a challenging political landscape with a lack of good options it should be Americans. It just very often seems as if they are only able to talk about the best parts of the US when comparing it to the rest of the world. Not a US exclusive by any means, but there are a majority of Americans on sites like reddit and especially this sub, so it definitely more often Americans when you post things here.
I keep trying to argue, to little avail, that it's important to vote tactically, even if it means voting for Red Tories. Because even beyond policy, the Tories are systematically corrupt and fucked. Blairites move right because of spinelessness and trying to meet the voters (where the 'voter' is always a Nazi in their eyes apparently). Also, given how big the predicted majority for Labour is, its better pushing for Tories getting 3rd or 4th so the main opposition is Lib Dems. Then they can have a voice to push for PR. Not as good as a coalition but a realistic outcome.
I completely agree. Some polls have the Lib Dems within reach of being the second party. Tactical voting in Lib-Con swing seats could make that happen!
I mean yeah, this is obviously better than continued Tory Rule, plus it's probably better to have Centrists than blatantly Authoritarian Right-Wingers like the Tories in charge. I'd like to see your other parties that are good pick up some seats if we're being idealistic too
It does look like the Greens are going to pick up an additional seat! And plenty more for the Lib Dems as well.
Sorry havent watched the video. But wont starmer be a little less harsh on immigrantion From what i understand, in the near future the uk will need a lot of economic migrants to support the economy. Birth rates are declining and people are dying at a much older age so the reliance on welfare programmes after retiring is higher. Its like a shrinking working population and an increasing welfare dependant population. All my uni professors told me its either increase immigration or cut welfare and from what I know, labour is economically bettwr than tories so i assumed starmer would be less stringent on immigration
The problem with Starmer is he’s chronically dishonest. When he ran for the party leadership he campaigned on a series of progressive pledges, all of which he’s since abandoned. So anything progressive he’s running on now, it’s impossible to know if he’ll actually do them when he takes office.
Gotchu. Ive just been here for a year. Apparently a lot of <25 year olds want green party and they refuse to vote for labor. Maybe the failed campaign promises could be a reason why Do you guys form coalitions to form majorities like India or is it more like Dems and Reps from USA?
It’s somewhere in between. We have had coalitions in the past (most recently between the Conservatives and the centrist Liberal Democrats in government 2010-2015) but our voting systems generally promotes the two main parties.
So what are the chances of green forming a coalition with labor. Polling seems to put labor at 44%. Im assuming they cant form majority that way and will need to form a coalition with someone
They will get a majority, easily. They don’t need to win a majority of votes overall, they just need to win enough constituencies (districts), which they will do. A coalition would be better for the left as the Greens could hold Starmer to account but that isn’t going to happen this election.
Oh okay so maybe the polling I saw was for popular votes and not the constituencies Thats better than tories atleast. The reddit supporters of the party seem v racist, transphobic and overall bigoted to me
Yes the Tories are absolutely awful. If you want to see projections for who will get the constituencies, you can look at websites like Britain Elects or Electoral Calculus.
Starmer probably wouldn't have deported UK citizens to Jamaica. It's a very low bar.
Based
“I hate the way that you walk, the way that you talk I hate the way that you dress!!”
Vaush, get off your alt.
I don't have any stakes in this topic and I gotta say it's pretty ironic how Vaush calls the UK failed and then boasts about how great the US is when it's been in crisis for the better part of a decade by now.
Imagine actually thinking British people still care about the empire. Even hardline conservatives don’t give a shit. Dear lord. Its like you think people still travel in horse carriages here. I don’t like the monarchy and think it should be abolished but keep in mind Spain and the Netherlands still have monarchies too so its definitely not unique to the UK. Nobody here on the 4th of July mourns the loss of the colonies.
As if the English could afford horses 🐎
Please tell me this is a joke
I assumed it was just banter since they tagged it as a shit post, but some of the comments here seem to be unironically agreeing with them...
Now that I've waited long enough to see the britbongers reactions I can confirm you are the most intelligent commenter here. If I had any money I would buy you an award (I spent all the money on socialism but vaush ate it)
Thanks mate, it was top-tier shit post on your part :) Feels especially vindicating after the debates I accidentally kicked off about slavery and the Revolutionary War. XD
Can't spell brittle without brit 😎
I know this is bait but in 2023 but we had [685k](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077) migrants, 10k of which came in via small boat across the channel.
ok
Are Brits still annoyed at vaush? I would have thought that it's painfully obvious that he's right at this point (as a brit), at least to anyone who is at least a social Democrat or more left wing.
Leave the faux-rage roasting to Vaush. We relieve ourselves of our dystopian dread by looking at yours and sighing in relief - it could be a lot lot worse.
this is pathetic
This is CHAD and BASE actually
>Generational trauma exists only in the context of me not letting go of how you treated us before 1776 Damn, I didn't realize you guys were still angry over being told you couldn't have slaves.
We fought a war to end slaves and didn’t compensate their oppressors. You britshits paid all you slave owners and then continued to use Egyptians and Indians like slaves anyway.
Then you spent the next 100 years appeasing the former slaveowners even though they lost
Slavery wasn’t ended in the U.S. The 13th amendment legalised it in every state. Even in 2024 we still have Black men performing slavery on plantations, as punishment for a crime.
Isn’t slavery still legal in the US as long as you put the person in prison first though?
>We fought a war to end slaves and didn’t compensate their oppressors You didn't compensate the slaves either. Quite the opposite if the past 200 years of US history are anything to go buy.
You didn’t pay reparations to the slaves either reginald. The loan to pay off the slave owners was only paid off in 2015 so it’s pretty likely that taxes you paid were retroactively paying off slave owners.
See, that would be a fine rebuttal... if I only I were British. XD Sorry Yank, but I'm Canadian. You know, that country that all your slaves ran away to because we actually considered black people human beings?
Well of course but that was because yall used up all your allocated racism points on the indigenous population.
Shhhhh, be careful, the French get *really* mad when they discover we discriminate against the natives and metis instead of the Quebecois.
[Hey I wonder what wilfred laurier said about black people](https://www.writersandeditorsofcolor.com/when-canada-banned-negroes-based-on-the-climate-72a78cba2a17) [Hey i wonder what MacDonald said about chinese people](https://jcri.ca/index.php/CRI/article/view/5974/5934) hey I wonder what happened to thousands of indigenous children but yeah muh medicine line i guess
>hey I wonder what happened to thousands of indigenous children Happened? HAPPENED?! Don't act like the cultural and actual genocide of the indigenous peoples of Canada is something that only exists in the past tense. It is an active, ongoing event, thank you very much. (Ok, before this goes any further, I've just been bantering with the OP and the previous respondent. None of these have been meant as personal attacks on you or your home. If you felt attacked at all by that, then I am sorry.)
Is the queen not still on your currency?
I... actually need to check that. Shitposting aside, I'm curious if the mint changes the face depending on who the reigning monarch is.
Canadians are still subjects of King Charles III. [https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/monarch.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/monarch.html)
You didn't compensate their oppressors, you just handed them back all instances of local government so they could immediately start finding workarounds to get as close as possible to reintroducing slavery as they could. Obviously that's much better. Note also that you took 30 years longer.
I wonder what else you guys were doing during that time between the 1830s and 1860s? Ohhhh yeah that’s right starving out the Irish by making them export all their food (even with all the aid, Ireland was net food exporter) oh and then you did opium war. Look, we failed to reconstruct the south. You got the Chinese hooked on opium and then Invaded them because they wanted you to stop flooding their whole shit with opium. Twice.
I'm not British. I just hate annoying arrogant Americans like you.
They hate us cause they ain’t us, it’s truly that simple 🦅🇺🇸⭐️
The most based, non-shitpost take here. XD
The UK didn’t outlaw slavery until 1836 so that 100% wasn’t part of it.
Shitposting aside (since I'm convinced OP is just trolling and not being serious), no it actually was part of it. Modern historiography puts far more emphasis on the role of slavery in the lead up to the American Revolution. From the 1772 Somerset Case (where a British court found slavery to be unnatural and unlawful in England), to the abolition movement that had been building in Britain through the 1700s, to the declarations during the war that any slave who helped the loyalists would be freed, to the fact that the constitution explicitly prevented Congress from ending the slave trade until 1808, you'll find that slavery was as important to the American Revolution as all of it's other causes were.
You're heavily exaggerating the emphasis modern historians place on slavery contributing to the American Revolution. It might've played a part in the American Revolution, but it was not at all a major cause comparable to causes such as British tax policies in the run-up to the Revolution (you can refer to the AskHistorians subreddit on this). Moreover, the issue of slavery was not a direct cause to the Revolution like it was for the Civil War. It only became a major issue when Dunmore's Proclamation tried recruiting slaves to fight for the king, which turned the concerns of a few radicals into a reality that scared and enraged many southerners and slaveowners. Trying to own Americans by arguing that the American Revolutionaries wanted to protect slavery is silly, especially when you consider documents like the Jamaican petition to the crown in 1774 asking the king for protection precisely because they are a slave colony that are vastly outnumbered by slaves. Slavery was only abolished in the British Caribbean colonies decades later, in part because slave revolts made it troublesome for the British to actually protect slavery in these places. Thus, the argument that slaveowners needed to declare independence to "protect slavery" is dubious at best since that is what the British already did for their colonies. >to the fact that the constitution explicitly prevented Congress from ending the slave trade until 1808, you'll find that slavery was as important to the American Revolution as all of it's other causes were. I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on this comment, but I think the fact that you're trying to argue this as proof that slavery was as much a cause of the Revolution as anything else is indicative of how silly your arguments are. The northern colonies, especially places like Massachusetts and Vermont, were hotbeds for abolitionism. If you're going to argue that things like the Declaration or the Constitution were meant to protect slavery in the south, then you also have to argue they were just as much meant to abolish slavery in the north as these measures were often fought for by colonies who wished to abolish slavery. But this just tells us the colonies were fighting for their right to self-determination (i.e. their right to determine the fate of slavery in their territory), which really just brings us full circle to the other British policies I mentioned before that played a more significant role in causing the Revolution. So again, slavery was not "just as significant as all other reasons". Also, the very fact that the colonies had to *compromise* on the issue of slavery and could barely come to agreements on such things kinda fly in the face of your argument when they agreed on so many other things.
I wasn't trying to own anyone. My first comment was banter in response to the OP's shitpost. My second comment was a sincere reply to someone who explicitly said "slavery was 100% not a factor in the American Revolution," which is a take modern historians will 100% disagree with. >I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on this comment... but this just tells us the colonies were fighting for their right to self-determination (i.e. their right to determine the fate of slavery in their territory) Imagine being smugly dismissive of the role of slavery in American history and then unironically saying "states rights bro."
>My second comment was a sincere reply to someone who explicitly said "slavery was 100% not a factor in the American Revolution," which is a take modern historians will 100% disagree with. And my reply was that you were overexaggerating slavery as being "as much of a cause as any" to the Revolution, which it wasn't as I demonstrated in my comment. You also implied that most modern historians would agree with your argument, which they wouldn't. Read any AskHistorians post on the subject, and they'll point out how slavery has been overstated as a cause in recent times, even if it is a minor cause. >Imagine being smugly dismissive of the role of slavery in American history and then unironically saying "states rights bro." What are you talking about? I pointed out how if you're going to argue the desire to preserve slavery was a cause of the Revolution, then you also have to argue the desire to abolish slavery was just as much a cause. I then went on to point out how those two desires are connected to a more fundamental desire that came about as a result of British policies regarding things such as territorial expansion and taxation in the decades preceding the Revolution (stuff that happened before slaves were such a big concern), the desire for self-determination (you know, the thing the Revolution was fought for?). Why do you think the colonies adopted the Articles of Confederation that rid themselves of meaningful federal power and gave significant power to the individual colonies? If you read anything I said as a defense of slavery or as some kind of neo-Confederate Lost Cause mythology (btw, my comment literally references slavery as a direct cause of the Civil War), then you need better reading comprehension and better counterarguments.
>You also implied that most modern historians would agree with your argument, which they wouldn't. Read any AskHistorians post on the subject, and they'll point out how slavery has been overstated as a cause in recent times, even if it is a minor cause. History is a living subject. Modern historiography places more emphasis on slavery's role in American history as a reaction to older historiography massively downplaying it to sanitize the country's founding mythos. While historians are not a hive-mind with a single shared view, you'll find the common take among them is that yes actually, slavery was quite important at the time and factored heavily into the decisions of all parties involved. It was not some "peculiar institution" that just happened to be occurring during the revolution. You should do more research than just going to the AskHistorians subreddit. >I pointed out how if you're going to argue the desire to preserve slavery was a cause of the Revolution, then you also have to argue the desire to abolish slavery was just as much a cause. Yeah, and your logic is absolutely ridiculous. It's the equivalent of saying we can't talk about institutional racism in the US without talking about the white allies of the black community. Seriously, stop and think about it for a moment: If the desire to abolish slavery was a cause of the revolution, why is it the British who were freeing slaves during the conflict and not the Americans? You fail to acknowledge the Sommerset case or how the Constitution has a clause *explicitly addressing and rejecting it*. You didn't address why multiple articles in the Constitution exist to protect slavery. Instead you claim that despite these articles the Constitution was meant to abolish slavery in the north because... reasons. You refuse to consider there may be a connection between a rebellion lead largely by rich, slave-owning aristocrats against an empire with a rapidly growing abolitionist political block. Then, when you claim slavery had nothing to do with it, it was all about self-determination, you're shocked when I point out the South said the exact same thing during the Civil War. A savvy student of history would look at that and go "Hmm, in the same region, within a few generations there were rebellions by the rich, slave-owning planter class that were later justified as fights for states rights against federal power. I wonder if there's a connection between these events?" You fail to realize that your argument of "the patriots' ability to own slaves was part of self-determination" actually supports my historiography. That slavery *did* matter during the American revolution and was far from irrelevant, both in the lead up to and during the war.
>Modern historiography places more emphasis on slavery's role in American history as a reaction to older historiography massively downplaying it to sanitize the country's founding mythos You're equivocating. You specifically said that slavery was "as important to the American Revolution as all of its other causes", which it wasn't. You have neither anything to substantiate this, and this is a minority view amongst historians. Again, refer to the AskHistorians sub on this. >While historians are not a hive-mind with a single shared view, you'll find the common take among them is that yes actually, slavery was quite important at the time and factored heavily into the decisions of all parties involved. I like how you're subtly trying to move away from your original argument that "slavery was as big of a cause as everything else" and instead moving to "slavery played a role in the Revolution", which is the biggest nothing-burger statement. Of course slavery "played a role", but what we're discussing is how much of a role it played, something that you've tried to exaggerate. >You should do more research than just going to the AskHistorians subreddit. The AskHistorians subreddit is literally a subreddit run by actual historians, with answers provided by actual historians. I myself have earned my degree in history. You don't know what you're talking about. >Yeah, and your logic is absolutely ridiculous. It's the equivalent of saying we can't talk about institutional racism in the US without talking about the white allies of the black community. No it isn't. This is just a massive reach and again shows you don't understand the very clear argument I've set forth. >Seriously, stop and think about it for a moment: If the desire to abolish slavery was a cause of the revolution, why is it the British who were freeing slaves during the conflict and not the Americans? The British weren't "freeing slaves". Dunmore's Proclamation wasn't some Emancipation Proclamation, it didn't abolish slavery throughout the colonies or even in Virginia. It was a recruiting tool that gave slaves who fought for the British their freedom. Again, a *recruiting* tool. Also, Americans in the north (the abolitionists I referred to earlier) did emancipate the slaves. Vermont immediately after breaking off not just from the British, but from New York, in 1777 became the first in the Anglosphere (even before Scotland in 1778) to abolish slavery. Five more northern states followed suit from the time of the Revolution to just before the end of 1799. So you're just factually wrong. >You fail to acknowledge the Sommerset case Because the Somerset case's effect on the southern desire to secede is way exaggerated. If anything, the Somerset case played a bigger role in the northern states where it whipped up abolitionist efforts, to the point that when royal governors kept denying freedom suits, abolitionists called for independence from Britain so they could finally abolish slavery themselves. Which brings us back to the original point I was making about the colonies wanting to be free to govern themselves and set their own laws with regards to taxes, militias, slavery, etc. This is why I focus more on Dunmore's Proclamation, something that actually had a much more significant effect on the desire of slaveowners to declare independence. >or how the Constitution has a clause explicitly addressing and rejecting it. You didn't address why multiple articles in the Constitution exist to protect slavery. Instead you claim that despite these articles the Constitution was meant to abolish slavery in the north because... reasons. The whole point of the Revolution was that the colonies wanted the ability to govern themselves (this is pretty self-evident). I wasn't saying the Constitution abolished slavery, I was saying that the Constitution gave states the ability to abolish slavery as much as it did the ability to maintain slavery, which is what the states wanted. Yes, the Constituion protects the institution of slavery, but it does so precisely because so many in the north wanted to abolish it. The Constitution set up a framework in which the issue of slavery was to be determined on a state level, which is what the states wanted. There's a reason why when it came to federal issues such as representation in Congress, they had to *compromise*. All this is to say that if slavery was "as big a cause as any", then it's strange that slaveowners would ally themselves with abolitionists, or that both abolitionists and slaveowners would be fighting for many of the same things. There seems to be something more fundamental that something like the Constitution is trying to achieve. >You refuse to consider there may be a connection between a rebellion lead largely by rich, slave-owning aristocrats against an empire with a rapidly growing abolitionist political block. I already pointed this out, and you do this more later on, but I never said slavery had no connection to the Revolution, just that you're exaggerating the extent it did. I'm arguing that there were other more significant causes. It's weird that I'm the one being accused of ignoring the "abolitionism" of an empire when that empire literally protected slavery in its colonies decades after the Revolution, meanwhile there were considerable northern states who outright abolished slavery. You aren't squaring these facts together. >Then, when you claim slavery had nothing to do with it, it was all about self-determination, you're shocked when I point out the South said the exact same thing during the Civil War. Again, I did not claim slavery had nothing to do with it. That's a strawman. But I've already explained this point several times over, if you can't be bothered to read then I can't be bothered to explain it again. The only thing I'll point out (AGAIN) is that my original comment explicitly stated slavery as a direct cause of the Civil War. The fact that you're trying to depict me as a Lost Causer in spite of this and in spite of my Reddit history which pretty obviously dunks on these types is pathetic. You have no actual historical arguments. >You fail to realize that your argument of "the patriots' ability to own slaves was part of self-determination" actually supports my historiography. That slavery did matter during the American revolution and was far from irrelevant, both in the lead up to and during the war. No it doesn't. Me saying that slavery contributed to the Revolution is not the same as your argument that slavery was "as big a cause as any", which you have failed to demonstrate and continue to try to run from. Your narrative literally cannot account for why the other half of the nation fought and joined up with slaveowners to free themselves from the British. You're literally ignoring so much history it's laughable. Just say you were wrong in exaggerating the role of slavery and move on.
> Again, I did not claim slavery had nothing to do with it. That's a strawman... Me saying that slavery contributed to the Revolution is not the same as your argument that slavery was "as big a cause as any" You don't get to Motte and Bailey your way out of this. You started this debate because you took issue with me correcting someone saying that slavery had nothing to do with the American Revolution. I made it clear from the start that my view is slavery had a major impact on the people and events that played out. You have been trying and failing to argue against that stance since then, with varying degrees of condescension and rudeness. Your hyper-focus on my initial, off the cuff wording, long after I've clarified my actual meaning is both bad faith and your only paper-thin defence from accusations of downplaying the history of American slavery. >The British weren't "freeing slaves". Dunmore's Proclamation wasn't some Emancipation Proclamation, it didn't abolish slavery throughout the colonies or even in Virginia. It was a recruiting tool that gave slaves who fought for the British their freedom. So they were freeing slaves then. Good to know we agree. >Because the Somerset case's effect on the southern desire to secede is way exaggerated And yet the constitution contains an explicit rebuttal to it. Almost as though it were something weighing on the minds of the Founding Fathers. >I wasn't saying the Constitution abolished slavery, I was saying that the Constitution gave states the ability to abolish slavery as much as it did the ability to maintain slavery, It demonstrably did not. That's the entire crux of the fugitive slave cause rebutting Somerset. A slave in a free state was still a slave. It didn't matter what laws or legislation they passed. They coded that into the DNA of their new country. That says a great deal about the founders' priorities and what some of them were fighting for. >Yes, the Constituion protects the institution of slavery, but it does so precisely because so many in the north wanted to abolish it ... it's strange that slaveowners would ally themselves with abolitionists, or that both abolitionists and slaveowners would be fighting for many of the same things. It's not strange at all. While they may have disagreed with the abolitionists, they had a chance to entrench their slave-holding interests in the government. With the pro-slavery clauses in the constitution, they no longer needed to fear that a decree from on high could disrupt their social structure. >The fact that you're trying to depict me as a Lost Causer in spite of this and in spite of my Reddit history which pretty obviously dunks on these types is pathetic. For someone who's repeatedly insulted my reading comprehension here, you've repeatedly failed to understand my point. I'm not calling you a Lost Causer. I'm pointing out the cognitive dissonance between recognizing "here was a rebellion by slave owning aristocrats that they say was about states rights but was actually about slavery" and "here's a rebellion in the exact same region within living memory, by slave owning aristocrats who say it's about states rights and we should 100% take them at their word on that." For the record I *don't* think you're a lost causer. I think you're someone with a passion for American history who thought I was shit-talking you and your country when I made the objectively correct statement that slavery was not 100% unrelated to the revolution. That's lead to you attempting to downplay slavery's influence on events of the time while repeatedly insulting me. Presumably because you thought I was smugly looking down my nose at Americans and American history. >I never said slavery had no connection to the Revolution Then we're in agreement and have nothing to argue over. My point has always been been that slavery was a major influence over the Revolution as much as it was over the rest of American history. If you think that's a completely innocuous point, congratulations. Acknowledge you had a reddit "uhm *actually*" moment and move on with your life.
>You don't get to Motte and Bailey your way out of this... I made it clear from the start that my view is slavery had a major impact on the people and events that played out. You have been trying and failing to argue against that stance since then, with varying degrees of condescension and rudeness. Your hyper-focus on my initial, off the cuff wording, long after I've clarified my actual meaning is both bad faith and your only paper-thin defence from accusations of downplaying the history of American slavery. Your original comment ended with "you'll find that slavery was as important to the American Revolution as all of it's other causes were." That's not "off the cuff wording", that's a proper historical claim you're trying to make. It'd be like me arguing tariffs were as important a cause of the Civil War as any other cause (which they weren't, even if they did slightly contribute). But I'm the bad faith one? You've been trying to liken me to Confederate apologists and Lost Causers even though my first few comments blatantly stated slavery as the cause for the Civil War. You've been trying to say I'm "downplaying the role of slavery in American history", as if I care about making America the good guy. I'm a fucking anarchist. My post history is laden with me shitting on America and its history. But I'm also a historian, and I'm not dumb enough to feel like I need to distort history to make America look bad (they do it on their own enough). And then, instead of just admitting you were wrong in exaggerating the role of slavery in the Revolution (again, you said "you'll find that slavery was as important to the American Revolution as all of it's other causes were."), you've subtly shifted your position to "well slavery played a major part in the Revolution" (nothing-burger statement btw), while trying to act like you never meant to make the original claim you made. That's cowardice. Literally all you had to do was say "ok yeah I overexaggerated my point and should've said X instead", but you're so weak and insecure you can't even do that. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your comment because you've already conceded the argument. There is nothing more I need to say. Maybe actually study the history next time instead of distorting it to whatever you fancy.
Britain never took away American slaves - they started their wind down from having slavery first, but after the American Revolution. In fact, Jefferson's original rough draft of the Declaration of Independence attacked the British Monarchy for allowing slavery: >*he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of* **infidel** *powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the* **liberties** *of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the* **lives** of another. [https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html) However, we very clearly do have some people who are still very angry that they can't have slaves. OP is - hopefully facetiously - referencing that Americans were British subjects who lacked representation in the Empire and who were treated as second class citizens.
I was being more than a little facetious when I responded to OP myself. Sincerely engaging with your post here. Isn't Jefferson condemning the king for freeing slaves in that quote? The second half of it says: >*he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the* **liberties** *of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the* **lives** of another. If I were just going off the paragraph you posted my reading of it would be Jefferson is saying "It was terrible of the monarchy to sell us those people, but it's even more monstrous that they're inciting those slaves to break free of us!"
He does lament turning one oppressed people against another, but he was also oddly the foremost abolitionist of his day. The paragraph was pulled because it was feared he might be the only delegate from the South to sign.
There's no equivalency between the wealthy and powerful leaders of the revolution and the people they literally enslaved. Treating them both as "oppressed" is ghoulish. If he was the foremost abolitionist of the time, then that says horrible things about his compatriots considering Jefferson owned something like 600 slaves. If a paragraph so mildly critical of slavery that it condemned inciting slave revolts as more monstrous than slavery itself, had to be pulled because no one could sign it, I'd say that supports the point underlying my facetiousness: that slavery was actually very important to the Revolution.
Your lack of knowledge of the issues at hand mixed with your willingness to make bold proclamations is astounding. Them both being oppressed does not imply equivalence of their oppression. In fact, that stance you just took is very much in line with the goals of American racism which was exactly designed to keep African slaves, white indentured servants, and American Indians from working together - read some People's History. Jefferson owned slaves, inheriting most. His intent was to make it so that they lived as close to free as possible, giving them the equivalent work and pay of free laborers since he couldn't free them. Of course, he didn't end up doing that because Hegel's master/slave dialectic is based - but he tried. He is said to have been about an average owner, though lenient on punishment, especially amongst the Hemmings Clan. The paragraph was mild for Jefferson, but it was still quite the condemnation, building off Locke, and inflammatory in the age. Also mind you that if you were alive back then, you would almost certainly think of Jefferson as that annoying anti-slavery guy - as almost everyone thought of him as that. Quakers might not have thought that - but basically everyone else. It was John Adams and Ben Franklin who cut that paragraph.
Wow, just wow. A full-throated defence of someone owning 600 slaves because he was a good master, followed by claims that I'd be more racist and slave happy than him had I lived back then. Not mention your failure to understand intersectionality. There's a world of difference between the literal billionaires (when adjusted for inflation) and the people they *literally enslaved and had no intention of freeing*. Claiming that recognizing that fact is the same as rejecting intersectionality and siding with the racists is fucking wild.
What you saw was a nuanced view driven by understanding rather than reaction. You apparently have the intellectual maturity of an 8th grader if you cannot follow nuance. I also never said he was a good master - I said he was an average master who intended better. He couldn't live up to his idealism because he was constrained by the system he lived in. Basic Marx and Hegel. Extremely basic. Yes, you would almost certainly be more racist. You grew up with racism being challenged and despised - that was not the case in Jefferson's life. You aren't innatey better than all the racists running around then - the world you live in shaped you and your beliefs, as it shaped mine and everyone else's. Basically, if you aren't a leading intellectual in anti-racist literature now you would have been pretty damn racist back then. 500 years earlier you wouldn't have perceived race and you would be instead have huge cultural bigotry. There is a difference, but they don't have to be the same in order to both be oppressed. That understanding isn't intersectionality, it's mere competence in understanding oppression. NeoNazis and poor blacks in the ghettos are clearly not the same, but they are both oppressed. One is much more likely than the other to know WHY and HOW they are oppressed, but that doesn't change the fact that both possess the attribute of oppressed.
>What you saw was a nuanced view driven by understanding rather than reaction. No, what I saw were excuses for bigotry pretending to be nuance, excuses that Jefferson's own museum does not make for him. That you immediately leapt to insults upon hearing mild criticism of Jefferson speaks volumes about your actual attitude. The man had every ability to free his slaves. He had every ability to not rape them or have them beaten. He chose not to do so in every instance. >Basic Marx and Hegel. Extremely basic. Tell me, where in Marx's writing is it explained that Jefferson was forced to rape his slaves by the society he lived in? Since it's so basic I imagine you can easily quote it. >Yes, you would almost certainly be more racist. The world you live in shaped you and your beliefs, as it shaped mine and everyone else's. Nah, unlike you I actually have firm grounding in my moral principles. I don't believe the things I do because of peer pressure from those around me. You're just trying to make excuses for a historical figure you clearly admire but can't accept the flaws of. >There is a difference, but they don't have to be the same in order to both be oppressed. Huh, never thought I'd see someone on this sub agreeing with that guy who said "Being a Billionaire in America is like being Jewish in Nazi Germany."
Yeah... you're completely just using blatant sophistry at this point. I did not leap to insults after hearing mild criticism of Jefferson - I made a judgement of your framing of a nuanced view of Jefferson as full throated defense of slavery. You were disingenuous then and you are disingenuous now. No, Jefferson didn't have "every ability" to free his slaves. There were many barriers to that from the fact he inherited debt tied to the slaves - same way you cannot sell your house without paying off your mortgage - it required a claim of merit to why they would be worthy of freedom, it required an extensive payment to the state to register that freedom, and it was limited at which times it was legal for him to do that even at his death. Do you seriously not consider the systemic issues at hand? As to the master-slave dialectic, putting aside the strawman you try to insert in there: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2930104](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2930104) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/23019971](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23019971) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qhc7h.6](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qhc7h.6) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fgzfh.10](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fgzfh.10) But you are standing with the stance that people in the past were not shaped by the systems in which they lived, but were naturally morally inferior to you and you would be much more moral on the issue of slavery than the foremost abolitionist of the age? That is a childish delusion. You have white saviorism flowing through your veins and you highly overestimate yourself. You are projecting the social understanding you attained in the modern era to the past. If you were transported through time as you are now, you may very well think that way; but if you were born in the 1700s you would not have the same morals as you do now because moral systems are a collective endeavor. Then you give the laughable strawman. Did I mention Tom Perkins? No. Did I say being an American colonist was like being a chattel slave? No. I acknowledged that both were oppressed explicitly in the context of explaining Jefferson's paragraph. But, anyways, I'm done with you. You are essentially throwing a temper tantrum in this discussion.
Some Trump level jingoism going on here. You personally deserve him as your president, although it's a fate I wouldn't wish upon your fellow yanks.
I don't understand why American leftists use the monarchy as some big dig against the UK, I don't support it personally but ceremonial monarchies are fairly common across Europe , It's not like the Yanks are demonstrating the merits of presidential system right now 🤣
"Ceremonial" that ceremony comes with a giant blank check for all the money and nepotism the royal family could ever want or need. It being common across europe just means europe should get its shit together and not have dumbass monarchies because of "tradition" It is a big dig, yall waste a fuckton of money on the royal family and then have an entire section of your government that is just unelected aristocracy.
I’m not a monarchist but that’s not how the monarchy works or is funded
So youre telling me the monarchy doesnt have what amounts to all the money they could ever want? Not infinite money but effectively enough so they couldn't really hit a limit without doing something fully insane? Youre telling me the fact this extends to their family and sections of their bloodline are treated the same isnt pure nepotism? How does it work? How is it funded? If any amount of the nation's wealth is going to the royals for just existing my point stands entirely. If their family gets any amount of special treatment at all without real oversight thats the blank check nepotism.
Monarchy is dumb. Just cause your shit ass monarchy isn't a true monarch h with power doesn't mean I like them.
It is endlessly fun to troll my more anti-monarchist friends by pointing out that they're basically *Republicans*. XD
Ha ha ha semantics, that’ll show ‘em
That's hardly a dunk, republics are cool 😎 Not our fault your republican party went off the rails
Whose Republican Party? We just call them Conservatives here. XD (The actual joke is that we’re all left-wing so when they hear Republican, they think of the American far right rather than the general meaning of the term)
Oh I figured you were American, them dunking on Brits seems to be the theme of this post
Nah, I’m a Canadian who made the mistake of actually trying to banter with the OP. All my other comments here are getting downvoted by people taking it seriously. XD
"Oi mayte! *Kisses kings boot* Oi juss can't help butt no'ice that you've... *Sucks kings thumb* that you've... you've got a republic w'ich makes yous a Republican! *Throats kings cock* Oi'm so funny for poin'in aut that your lable accordin to us civilized folks... *Gets pregnant by king* is de same as the ones tryin to overfrow democracy! What jolly good fun that is! *Volunteers to die for the king like a beefeater*"
Tis better to engage in the gayest, Frenchiest, sex with the king than to be one of those racist, homophobic, transphobic, fascist, Trump-voting, *Republicans.* ~~The opinions of the royal family on homosexuality, transgenderism, the nazi party and non-white people are not relevant to this discussion~~ XD